Was there no such historical figure? Was there a Jewish peasant (or peasants) around whom a larger story was later constructed? Or was there really a demi-God who died for our sins?
If there were no historical Jesus, how much difference would that make? Would it negate his teachings? If there were no historical Jesus, where did the teachings come from? ******************************************************** 04-02-06, 11:31 AM juanruiz The question of the historical Jesus has garnered a huge amount of attention, due mainly to Schweitzer's book published at the turn of the last century. There are no hard and fast answers; at least none that would satisfy all. The great German scholar, Rudolf Bultmann, after much perusal of the NT, concluded there was no Jesus there, just the Christ of faith.
As for the message, there is not a great deal of originality, much was already circulating. The parable was not a Jesus invention, Judaism used them long before. The Dead Sea Scrolls have their own figure, The Teacher of Righteousness, who seems to parallel Jesus in many ways; he was even slain too. The "purification" or reform of Judaism, a return to more basic precepts, was preached by the Baptist and other groups.
Still, if there was a Jesus, and he did preach, it has yet to be answered whether the words attributed to him in the Gospels are his, or the invention of other, later, writers.
04-02-06, 12:24 PM babthrower
quote: If there were no historical Jesus, where did the teachings come from?
Could it be from the realization among some of the Jews that it is smart to love and support one's fellow Jews?
Commmon sense would seem to show that if the Jews had remembered that Rome was the enemy, instead of wasting energy and lives in fighting among themselves (such as among the various sects) and stoning heretics, their chances of survival would have been greater.
So if there was no actual Jesus, there could have been a sect that taught that they should love one another, and that it would be wise to drop many of the rituals and rules that proved divisive.
But Jesus, or that sect, was crushed by the dominant sects, and either way Jerusalem was doomed.
If there was a historical Jesus, and my hunch is there was, he was a very smart man. But leaders of populist or peasant movements don't do very well, generally. He was up against both the Romans and the Jewish establishment.
It's interesting to speculate about how Jesus (if there was a Jesus) came to believe that he was the messiah.
Scenario: Mary and Joseph and their baby are at an inn. The Magi (from Persia) stop for a camel pitstop. The Magi are on some quest, based on their astrological studies. They speak of a great king. Like most parents, Mary and Joseph get it into their heads that it must be their firstborn who was foretold, and connected it with the messiah predictions from the testaments. Over and over, as Jesus was growing up, they told this story to friends and relatives in Jesus' hearing. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Question I have always wondered about:
Why would the astrological findings of pagan Persian priests have been believed by faithful Jews? I think the OT is pretty clear on the subject of how to view pagan beliefs.
04-02-06, 12:57 PM juanruiz
quote: It's interesting to speculate about how Jesus (if there was a Jesus) came to believe that he was the messiah.
Question I have always wondered about:
Why would the astrological findings of pagan Persian priests have been believed by faithful Jews? I think the OT is pretty clear on the subject of how to view pagan beliefs
If there was a Jesus, the question may not have been how he came to see himself as the Messiah; there were Messiahs all over the place from Judas the Gallilean on through Bar Kochba. The question would be, how did he see himself as no Messiah ever described in the Jewish texts, i.e., divine? It is here, I believe, that outside writers are to blame.
As for the Magi, since that only occurs in MT, as does the slaughter of the innocents, I see it as literary invention. The first symbol of strangers who recognize him while his own people don't.
04-02-06, 02:31 PM babthrower
quote: As for the Magi, since that only occurs in MT, as does the slaughter of the innocents, I see it as literary invention. The first symbol of strangers who recognize him while his own people don't.
That makes sense. Still, you'd think the Church Fathers would have gone, "Hmmm..." over the pagan input.
I've noticed other signs that in testament times, the priests believed in the powers of other religious systems. Cf. Aaron's rod. He was simply more powerful than the Pharoah's priests. But they had power.
Even Jehovah saw himself as a Jewish god, not the only god. He sounds as if he believes in other gods, or demigods, it's just that he's jealous.
I think the Greeks came up with the idea of one god, and this caused a shuffling among Jews and Christians, and revising of interpretation.
They would have immediately seen the advantage of having the only god in the universe. A closed shop.
In modern times, all other gods are seen as fakes, and all other religions as impotent, except of course for one's own.
04-02-06, 02:54 PM juanruiz
quote: Still, you'd think the Church Fathers would have gone, "Hmmm..." over the pagan input.
Actually, they would see it as a great selling device. Vast numbers of pagans converted to Christianity, and were welcomed with open arms. The Magi were the first, and should have been declared saints and protectors of the pagan converts.
04-02-06, 03:34 PM babthrower (Sigh!) The war between pragmatism and idealism. Never-ending, isn't it?
04-02-06, 04:27 PM juanruiz
quote: Never-ending, isn't it?
Seems that way. The problem with Bibilcal exegesis is that it truely opens up a whole Pandora's Box. We have seen that here, as more than one contributor has presented interpretations based on gematria, allegory, symbolism, metaphor, and the like. In other words, seeking to explain by employing figurative language; not always to the satisfaction of others. Heck, I confess to doing the same thing with the Magi. What is the justification for my interpretation? Just that it appears to be the introduction of a theme which winds its way through MT's gospel. Same is true with the innocents: the introduction of the theme of Jesus' murder at the hands of the Jewish establishment (e.g., Herod). A theme that has its dénouement at Calvary. Does that make my view correct? Nope. But can anyone's really be "correct?"
04-02-06, 05:26 PM babthrower Can anyone's be 'correct'? No, is the expected answer. Because there is no benchmark against which to measure correctness.
If I belonged to the subgroup descended from Judaism, i.e. if I were Jewish, Islamic or Christian, I would read the testaments/Koran applying always the most literal interpretation. I would refuse to consider a metaphorical, allegorical, or in any way figurative interpretation. Because that is the way that leads to hundreds of warring sects.
But there would still be a problem. Because of the relatively small vocabulary compared to modern languages, certain words might be almost untranslatable.
example: When Genesis speaks of the [upper] firmament, should we interpret firmament as the universe? The sky? Was there a Hebrew word for universe in any way comparable to today's use?
Here is how the word is used in Genesis. Without a dictionary of Hebrew as it was used in O.T. times, we have only context to provide clues to meaning.
quote:
Ge 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Ge 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Ge 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Ge 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Ge 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Ge 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Ge 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
So I could likely only find meaning in some of the texts, because some of them are incapable of literal interpretation.
I wonder if other religious sub-groups fight over texts to that extent?
It seems that Muslims have one big advantage: the only translations are from old-Arabic to newer-Arabic. Maybe that's one reason why they seem to have fewer sects. Or maybe they just were more effective at eliminating dissent.
04-02-06, 05:29 PM juanruiz
quote: I would refuse to consider a metaphorical, allegorical, or in any way figurative interpretation.
But then we run into the Song of Solomon. What on earth is a woman talking about the beauty of her breasts doing in the Bible?
04-03-06, 02:10 AM babthrower Well, hey, if you had breasts you would think they were beautiful, too, JR! In fact you'd probably spend all day in front of the mirror!
(Oh, you do that already? Oops!)
Seriously though, the song says, " Thy breasts", doesn't it? So it's sung to, not by, a woman.
04-03-06, 03:24 AM tsaeb This thread has covered boo boos and boobs.
Jesus claimed to be speaking the word from his Father, God. So whatever is or is not thought about Jesus, if we remove Jesus, we still have to analyze whether the words are God surfacing as the Word. There are some scriptures which go so far as to claim that Jesus is the Word. So I think it follows that God would have to be Jesus and that Jesus would have to be God.
04-03-06, 08:34 AM juanruiz
quote: Jesus claimed to be speaking the word from his Father, God.
If that means reflecting previous Jewish thought as reflected in the OT, sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. Declaring the Shema the greatest commandment is an example of the former. Saying "I and the Father are one," an example of the latter.
04-03-06, 11:12 AM VelvetVoice From my church study of Matthew: The Magi were probably Babylonian priests or Ninevites who were probably spared destruction of their city. Remember the story about Nebuchadnezzar, when he was driven from the palace and lived in the wilderness for a time. When he was restored to his kingdom, he proclaimed the God of the Israelites was the true God.
God knew he was the only God, it was the Israelites who believed in other gods. And yes, He is a jealous God. He knew that some of the practices of the surrounding peoples would leak into daily routines, so that's why he said 'do not have other gods before me' meaning gods, superstitions, astrology, money and financial practices, cleanliness, eating, etc.
04-03-06, 11:40 AM juanruiz When read within the context of the MT narrative the Magi story makes no sense at all as history. They have the star to guide them, yet instead of following it directly to Bethlehem, they stop off to see Herod, who tells them to come back and report the baby's whereabouts. Herod himself, or his well developed secret police could have done the job themselves, thus avoiding the slaughter of all those male children (another fictional event).
04-03-06, 11:51 AM VelvetVoice Wouldn't you stop off and visit the king or ruler of the land? They may have caused insult to Herod if they didn't stop and tell what they were looking for. They were probably astrologers, and thought they would also see this sign in the sky. Maybe to see what Herod's diviners knew. And how do you know the slaughter didn't happen? I would be surprised to find out that most kings and rulers didn't use this technique to hold on to their political position.
04-03-06, 11:54 AM juanruiz
quote: And how do you know the slaughter didn't happen?
Because history, although documenting many of Herod's savage acts, is completely silent on this. And believe me, with Bethlehem 5 miles from Jerusalem, notice would have spread.
04-03-06, 12:08 PM babthrower The historical Herod died before Jesus was born.
04-03-06, 12:17 PM juanruiz
quote: The historical Herod died before Jesus was born.
Only if you accept the Lukan narrative. If you accept MT, LK is wrong.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
